(21-03-2017 06:25 PM)epronovost Wrote: Yeah, it did. In the very first point. It linked you to two reasearches showing that trasngender women produce less testosterone than cisgender women, thus they actually have a disadvantage on that point and that their muscle and bone mass is similar to that of cisgender women of similar weight and racial background. Of course that's assuming they are post operation for long enough for their metabolism to adapt to a new cocktail of hormones.

Interesting.
The facebook thing I saw did mention something like this. The former guy/girl that won had transitioned later in life. I believe that was part of the problem because she had been at those male levels for so long compared to someone that had started hormone therapy around the teenage years.

I think though that raises an issue that if there was a transgender category, would it be fair for transgender women who transitioned early compared to those that transitioned later?

It's tricky.

I wonder how the olympics will deal with this issue in the coming years. There are sports that men are just faster at. I could be totally wrong about this but men have faster speeds usually than the women in swimming and track. I don't know if it's fair that a man could transition to a woman and be allowed to compete on the track as a woman -- where she could potentially beat even the men's best scores leaving many women out of the record breaking challenge really forever.

If Michael Phelps suddenly decided that he was a woman, and transitioned, could he compete against women instead of men? That could alone add another 8 years to his swimming career -- which would be unheard of in his field. Sure it would be great for the team competitions, but I mean, would it be fair or ethical?

But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

(21-03-2017 11:07 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote: I wonder how the olympics will deal with this issue in the coming years.

They're having to deal with it now with the likes of sprinters Caster Semenya and Dutee Chand who have hyperandrogenism with natural testosterone levels 15-20 times that of a normal female. These women aren't cheating or juicing, they just have a genetic advantage for their chosen sport - Understanding the Controversy Over Caster Semenya.

There are some Norwegians who have a genetic defect which makes it so their blood carries as much as 50% more oxygen than normal. (Check out how many of the VO2 max records are held by Norwegians). This obviously gives them a competitive advantage in endurance sports like cross country skiing. Should they be banned from competing? The IOC doesn't think so. But they made Dutee Chand take testosterone lowering drugs in order to compete.

Oh yay, yet another ignorant ass hole weighing in on something he knows so little about...

Fuck off with your post-PC edgelord bullshit.

And "tranny"? Do you also support the use of anti-gay slurs, like "homo", "fudge packer", "fairy", "queer" and other shit like that?

If you don't give any shits about it, then don't give any shits and don't have an opinion. But if you actually want to know what transitioning does to the body, then do some damn research and learn about it yourself.

Edit: I used the word "cunt" and I hate using that word, and I felt bad about it, so I removed it.

(20-03-2017 10:35 PM)earmuffs Wrote: So.. I see on Facebooks that some tranny entered a weight lifting competition of some sort and won it or did well in it or some shit. Probably won it. And the issue was that she was a he and is that fair?

Of course I don't live in America or Saudi Arabia so naturally people on my facebooks aren't repressive assholes so all the comments were as you'd expect, 'if he wants to be a she they should let her', 'it's her right to choice' blah blah blah liberal leftest shit you'd expect. And initially I was in the same boat. Initial reaction was "respect the trans gender rights to acknowledge him as a her". BUUUT I was having a shower and was thinking about it more and I've changed my opinion.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for LGBQTwhateverthefucklettersmakeupthisshitnow rights. It doesn't bother me as long as you don't go full retard and dumb down society by calling yourself gender fluid or that you gender identify as a fucking corn flake or whatever the fuck these liberal hippy fuckwits are into these days.

So of course it's unfair to exclude her based on her once being a dude. BUT is it? Is it fair on the women who have been women their whole lives and don't have that biological advantage that the former dude has?? Competition, especially at this level, should be about ability and who has prepared/worked the hardest etc.. not who used to be a dude and thus has a huge biological advantage. It's a similar reason why steroids are illegal.

Should we maybe have trans gender categories? would there even be enough competition/demand for a category like that?

It's tricky because it's unfair to exclude her because she used to be a dude. But it's unfair on the rest of the competition if you include her because she has a unique biological advantage.

Thoughts? (beyond the initial emotional one you lot often give without actually giving it some reasonable thought please.)

I'm all for Trans equality but I have to agree with muffs that the biological advantage would appear to be huge for this person, I would imagine it potentially has the possibility to totally wipeout the competition even if they are taking female hormones. Its an interesting question, definitely worth looking into, I'm off to google this to make sure of the facts.

(20-03-2017 10:35 PM)earmuffs Wrote: So.. I see on Facebooks that some tranny entered a weight lifting competition of some sort and won it or did well in it or some shit. Probably won it. And the issue was that she was a he and is that fair?

Of course I don't live in America or Saudi Arabia so naturally people on my facebooks aren't repressive assholes so all the comments were as you'd expect, 'if he wants to be a she they should let her', 'it's her right to choice' blah blah blah liberal leftest shit you'd expect. And initially I was in the same boat. Initial reaction was "respect the trans gender rights to acknowledge him as a her". BUUUT I was having a shower and was thinking about it more and I've changed my opinion.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for LGBQTwhateverthefucklettersmakeupthisshitnow rights. It doesn't bother me as long as you don't go full retard and dumb down society by calling yourself gender fluid or that you gender identify as a fucking corn flake or whatever the fuck these liberal hippy fuckwits are into these days.

So of course it's unfair to exclude her based on her once being a dude. BUT is it? Is it fair on the women who have been women their whole lives and don't have that biological advantage that the former dude has?? Competition, especially at this level, should be about ability and who has prepared/worked the hardest etc.. not who used to be a dude and thus has a huge biological advantage. It's a similar reason why steroids are illegal.

Should we maybe have trans gender categories? would there even be enough competition/demand for a category like that?

It's tricky because it's unfair to exclude her because she used to be a dude. But it's unfair on the rest of the competition if you include her because she has a unique biological advantage.

Thoughts? (beyond the initial emotional one you lot often give without actually giving it some reasonable thought please.)

I'm all for Trans equality but I have to agree with muffs that the biological advantage is huge for this person, it potentially has the possibility to totally wipeout the competition even if they are taking female hormones.

It entirely depends on several factors- including how long she's been on hormones, what her levels are, and whether there are guidelines/regulations for monitoring and ensuring fairness in the competition.

I've been on hormones for two years now. I'm a regular runner. The longer I've been on hormones, the harder it's become to run for long distances. That means working harder and longer just to keep up with other women my age who have the same practices.

Without T, it's simply harder to build and maintain muscle.

I've not yet been able to find an article that actually examines details over headlines.

Is it potentially unfair? Yes. Is it definitely unfair? I don't know. It depends.

(22-03-2017 07:42 AM)adey67 Wrote: I'm all for Trans equality but I have to agree with muffs that the biological advantage is huge for this person, it potentially has the possibility to totally wipeout the competition even if they are taking female hormones.

It entirely depends on several factors- including how long she's been on hormones, what her levels are, and whether there are guidelines/regulations for monitoring and ensuring fairness in the competition.

I've been on hormones for two years now. I'm a regular runner. The longer I've been on hormones, the harder it's become to run for long distances. That means working harder and longer just to keep up with other women my age who have the same practices.

Without T, it's simply harder to build and maintain muscle.

I've not yet been able to find an article that actually examines details over headlines.

Is it potentially unfair? Yes. Is it definitely unfair? I don't know. It depends.

Thanks for the heads up Emma I edited my post to include the need to do research and I'm looking forward to doing this.

(20-03-2017 10:35 PM)earmuffs Wrote: ...It doesn't bother me as long as you don't go full retard and dumb down society by calling yourself gender fluid or that you gender identify as a fucking corn flake or whatever the fuck these liberal hippy fuckwits are into these days.

If the issue of alleged transgender sports "advantages" truly doesn't bother you, then why have you posted a thread about it?

Your passive-aggressiveness is a bit too obvious here, and makes you look a little over defensive—possibly because of a non-existent but perceived "attack" on your own wider, male-enhanced "rights".

SO there was a trans boy who wanted to play in the boys league. Texas would not let him, made him wrestle girls. And he was undefeated. Should he have been wrestling girls? No. Should he have been wrestling boys? Yes, although I'm not sure he could compete.

While there is overlap in male and female strength, the norm is for males to have stronger upper bodies than women. I wouldn't be surprised if women keep relatively higher strength for longer though. Part of the reason for male strength is testosterone. This trans boy was taking testosterone. While he might biologically be a girl, his treatment means that he has an advantage that his competitors don't.

Should a trans woman be able to compete against women? I don't know. Take away testosterone and the amount of muscle mass will decrease. But will it be in line with the norm for women? Since men tend to have larger skeletal structures than women would they still have an advantage? And would there be a significant difference between them and women athletes, who are already outliers in terms of strength, speed, and size? Your average male cannot compete with top female athletes, what is the chance that a trans woman would also be an outlier in terms of size?

(22-03-2017 07:42 AM)adey67 Wrote: I'm all for Trans equality but I have to agree with muffs that the biological advantage is huge for this person, it potentially has the possibility to totally wipeout the competition even if they are taking female hormones.

It entirely depends on several factors- including how long she's been on hormones, what her levels are, and whether there are guidelines/regulations for monitoring and ensuring fairness in the competition.

I've been on hormones for two years now. I'm a regular runner. The longer I've been on hormones, the harder it's become to run for long distances. That means working harder and longer just to keep up with other women my age who have the same practices.

Without T, it's simply harder to build and maintain muscle.

I've not yet been able to find an article that actually examines details over headlines.

Is it potentially unfair? Yes. Is it definitely unfair? I don't know. It depends.

Thanks for clarifying that Emma.

BTW I don't think Muffs meant harm by his thread, Muffs is being Muffs but yeah some of the word choices he used could be construed as offensive. It does raise interesting thoughts though about some sports and what might be fair.

Girly brought up an interesting point about Norwegians that was also interesting. Of course that cyclist Lance Armstrong...didn't he claim the same thing and it turned out he was doping?

But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

(22-03-2017 07:52 AM)Emma Wrote: It entirely depends on several factors- including how long she's been on hormones, what her levels are, and whether there are guidelines/regulations for monitoring and ensuring fairness in the competition.

I've been on hormones for two years now. I'm a regular runner. The longer I've been on hormones, the harder it's become to run for long distances. That means working harder and longer just to keep up with other women my age who have the same practices.

Without T, it's simply harder to build and maintain muscle.

I've not yet been able to find an article that actually examines details over headlines.

Is it potentially unfair? Yes. Is it definitely unfair? I don't know. It depends.

Thanks for clarifying that Emma.

BTW I don't think Muffs meant harm by his thread, Muffs is being Muffs but yeah some of the word choices he used could be construed as offensive. It does raise interesting thoughts though about some sports and what might be fair.

Girly brought up an interesting point about Norwegians that was also interesting. Of course that cyclist Lance Armstrong...didn't he claim the same thing and it turned out he was doping?

Regarding Muffs- I'm sure he didn't mean to be offensive. But it feels like he puts in awful lot of effort into being edgy and cranky and not caring about whether or not he comes off as offensive. Seemingly that effort could be just as easily put toward "not caring" in the non-aggressive manner one would expect from the truly apathetic.

Just my take, and he's free to rebut however he wants, of course. I don't think of him as a bad person, not that he's concerned about whether I do or not. I just think that much aggression takes a lot of work.

Anyway- I don't begrudge the conversation so much as I do the headlines and news stories. It's so hard to find an article actually looking at the details that matter. Everyone wants to focus on the fact that the competitor was trans, but we don't hear about the trans competitors that don't win. We don't hear about the misses. We only hear about the hits.

Personally, I'd never want to compete for a title like this as a trans person. Because even if you win, you can't "really" win. I was searching google for articles earlier and the amount of bile and rage and ignorance being spewed about this is overwhelming. I can't imagine what this person is going through in person. Ugh.

So, all that to say- there are definitely concerns. But proper medical monitoring and judgement ought to be put in place (if it's not there already) to help mitigate any unfairness.